Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuil: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:04, 4 September 2008

Cuil

violates WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. the only notable thing cuil has done, to date, is release a press release making wild claims that were parroted on news sites and that then turned out not to be true. cuil had their 15 minutes of fame. if they somehow manage to become relevant, then yeah, they deserve a wikipedia article, but that has yet to happen Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:26, 3 September 2008 edit Gwen Gale (talk \| contribs) 47,788 edits m →Cuil: k ← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:04, 4 September 2008 edit undo Squidfryerchef (talk \| contribs) 2,982 edits →Cuil: Keep Next edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	* '''Keep''', they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by [http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=338 reliable sources]. [[User:Gwen Gale\|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale\|talk]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)		* '''Keep''', they're still getting coverage (and a canny scolding) by [http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=338 reliable sources]. [[User:Gwen Gale\|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale\|talk]]) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

			*'''Keep''' You have to be kidding. Cuil was all over the news, so there's copious reliable sources. [[User:Squidfryerchef\|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef\|talk]]) 04:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)